Adhoc testing.....loss of time or not

Sometime I do adhoc testing but bug finding percentage is very low.In an interview I mentioned I perform adhoc testing but interviewer said is not it adhoc testing loss of time.In that time I have no logic for that question.But now I must say that for a tight schedule adhoc testing is loss of time.If your test coverage covers all boundary values then it may not require adhoc testing.Plz give your opinionSometime I do adhoc testing but bug finding percentage is very low.In an interview I mentioned I perform adhoc testing but interviewer said is not it adhoc testing loss of time.In that time I have no logic for that question.But now I must say that for a tight schedule adhoc testing is loss of time.If your test coverage covers all boundary values then it may not require adhoc testing.Plz give your opinion

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Azad - You know, in light of the discussions, articles, legacy definitions, and arguments I have seen in the last few years, I no longer know what that means anymore.

I went to a few dictionaries online. A few present "ad hoc" as a free-style approach to whatever you are doing. But most define it as "for the special purpose or end presently under consideration", such as in an ad hoc committee or an ad hoc report. The former definition is more of a slang meaning used by some to contrast with structured tests.

I have found that testing is most effective if performed with a base charter to guide the session - which still fits the "special purpose" definition of ad hoc!

Sorry Azad, I don't agree ad-Hoc testing to be loss of time. Most of the time we do ad-Hoc testing to see if we are not missing any thing. And you will find very help and agree with me that Test Case are just not enough to say application is bug free. Many times we miss any test case scenarios which you can include once you start doing ad-Hoc testing. Also small budget project prefer ad-Hoc testing.

Actually this topic is a controversial topic. I think more than 90% members will disagree like you. I want say for live (in market) vs. demo (in developing period) project testing. Ad-hoc testing in live site may not bring anything fruitful which can happen for demo projects. For small projects test case may cover all the inputs……..Actuall currently I am doing ad-hoc and I am irritated.

If you're finding that you run out of ideas pretty fast, and that your testing isn't particularly fruitful, then I'd suggest picking one or two of the resources up there and trying to apply them in your next session. It sounds rather like you're getting frustrated because you're just trying to throw yourself at the product under test without any kind of structure or analysis to help you - which is going to be pretty exhausting!

They glean a lot of their info from Cem Kaner, who arguably conceptualised the term "Exploratory Testing" which formalises ad-hoc testing.

Also, dont forget James Whittaker who is taking the idea of exploratory testing tours to all new levels... (personally I feel he has taken the tour concept in a new direction by using terms & ideas which need translating in order to be understood by non-testers.)

Maybe this is a case of a self-fulfilling misconception. If you define ad hoc as being testing without pre-planning, there's a danger you'll assume that you don't have to think about it beforehand, that it's just going straight in and thrashing around in the vague hope you'll find something. That's not a formula for a worthwhile testing session.

If you assume it's a waste of time then there's every chance that it will be.

In my view, Ad-hoc testing is extremely important because the end-users are actually ad-hoc users of your applications. The end users don't follow any test requirements or test cases while using these applications. So, ad-hoc testing helps you cover the scenarios that cannot be covered by test cases.